There is only 2 options, Life formed because of God, or by random chance from non-living matter

[BCP1928]

Anyway it says rookie move on the junkyard comparison, it's not,
look at evolutionist, they say to have vision you need to first get a light sensitive cell....
well, in the correct place that the animal needs it just popped an light sensitive cell? how? that is bs, that is a whole junkyard assembling itself.

It's a totally fake argument propounded dishonestly as misdirection. The theory of evolution (which for creationists always includes abiogenesis) neither affirms nor denies God's creative authorship of our being. In the end, what's really being argued for is the literal inerrancy of the Genesis creation accounts.

 

[NBB]

Oh dear. Such confidence in your lack of knowledge is sad to view. Where to begin? I suggest you educate yourself on what evolution actually is, not the cartoon version you currently hold so dear. Unfortunately, you will likely just double down on your ignorance on the subject, perhaps because it feels better.

That what they say about the eye, at least an evolutionist have said that from their mouth.

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye

 

[Ophiolite]

That what they say about the eye, at least an evolutionist have said that from their mouth.

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye

Now read it again and keep reading it until you understand it. A key point will be when you realise that there is no mention of a light sensitive sell arising to meet the needs of the organism. As long as you think it terms of evolution as meeting needs then you are constructing a silly strawman description of evolution. Now, go and read the item until you properly understand it. I shall be happy to help you with any difficulties you face along the way.

 

[BCP1928]

That what they say about the eye, at least an evolutionist have said that from their mouth.

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye

What it boils down to is that evolution will not occur unless the favorable variant is already in the population when the need arises.

 

[NBB]

Now read it again and keep reading it until you understand it. A key point will be when you realise that there is no mention of a light sensitive sell arising to meet the needs of the organism. As long as you think it terms of evolution as meeting needs then you are constructing a silly strawman description of evolution. Now, go and read the item until you properly understand it. I shall be happy to help you with any difficulties you face along the way.

Evolutionists feel like storytellers, a lot of 'could of'' 'maybe it happened this way', 'probably got that' etc.

 

[BCP1928]

Evolutionists feel like storytellers, a lot of 'could of'' 'maybe it happened this way', 'probably got that' etc.

That's a fair estimation for someone who has only a superficial understanding of the theory of evolution and science in general. Science is a discourse in deductive logic so absolute certainty is not possible. That is why, for example, that science can never deny the existence of God.

 

[partinobodycular]

What it boils down to is that evolution will not occur unless the favorable variant is already in the population when the need arises.

Well at least you got that part right. It's not about the variation magically appearing when it's needed. It's that the variation was already there. It's a gene pool... with millions of possible variations, thus the odds that some of them are slightly better than the others is pretty darn good. It's then just a matter of the environment selecting for the better variations.

So it's not that the genes change to fit the environment, it's that the environment just happens to change in such a way as to favor certain genes.

 

[Larniavc]

You can't know God with evidence, even if you are totally convinced you need to get closer to him still to know Him, so.

Is that the same as there being no evidence of God?

 

[Larniavc]

in the correct place that the animal needs it just popped an light sensitive cell?

Oh dear. It's like I'm back in 2005.

 

[BCP1928]

Well at least you got that part right. It's not about the variation magically appearing when it's needed. It's that the variation was already there. It's a gene pool... with millions of possible variations, thus the odds that some of them are slightly better than the others is pretty darn good. It's then just a matter of the environment selecting for the better variations.

So it's not that the genes change to fit the environment, it's that the environment just happens to change in such a way as to favor certain genes.

I think that is one of the biggest barriers to understanding evolution. The other is that evolution has long term targets requiring random mutations to line up just right. I'm surprised that we haven't heard from the OP of sad creatures dragging a useless, half-finished limb around hoping for just the right mutation to arrive at random to finish it off.

 

[BPPLEE]

I think that is one of the biggest barriers to understanding evolution. The other is that evolution has long term targets requiring random mutations to line up just right. I'm surprised that we haven't heard from the OP of sad creatures dragging a useless, half-finished limb around hoping for just the right mutation to arrive at random to finish it off.

Yeah, like the appendix

 

[Shemjaza]

Anyway it says rookie move on the junkyard comparison, it's not,
look at evolutionist, they say to have vision you need to first get a light sensitive cell....
well, in the correct place that the animal needs it just popped an light sensitive cell? how? that is bs, that is a whole junkyard assembling itself.

You have mistaken what the argument says and how it works.

The model is not the light sensitive cell just appearing where an eye needs to be, it's about a variation on existing structures and selection encouraging useful variations.

If an organism develops some light sensitive cells that can be very useful for working out where light, up, food and danger might be, but it's hardly a real example of sight.

However a species with developed light sensitivity cells might develop them in a pattern which in turn creates more precision and so will be selected for on a statistical species scale.

The fun thing about all these very real possibilities is that we can find examples of all these various "levels" of sight in the currently living animal kingdom.

The vertebrate lineage that humans are a part of weren't destined to have eyes like ours, but it was a distinct advantage, so despite both the flaws and the costs, most vertebrates since the early fish have kept their eyes.

EDIT: Typo, the system evolution doesn't have a plan or destiny

 

[NxNW]

Anyway it says rookie move on the junkyard comparison, it's not,
look at evolutionist, they say to have vision you need to first get a light sensitive cell....

Thats not hard to do.

well, in the correct place that the animal needs it just popped an light sensitive cell? how?

Who defines correct?

that is bs, that is a whole junkyard assembling itself.

Nobody claims that happened.

 

[NxNW]

Evolutionists feel like storytellers, a lot of 'could of'' 'maybe it happened this way', 'probably got that' etc.

Nobody's saying that either.

 

[Ophiolite]

Evolutionists feel like storytellers, a lot of 'could of'' 'maybe it happened this way', 'probably got that' etc.

That's fine. Continue to ignore the facts by changing the subject and avoiding addressing your earlier publicly revealed error of thinking. It is a well established process, but the only person it deceives is yourself and those wearing similar blinkers. My offer of help remains to use as soon as you start to take the matter seriously.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's terrible that people have to see things in such a binary way such as this.

One does not preclude the other. Evolution only specifically precludes Literalist Creationism. That's it. And Christianity does perfectly fine without relying solely on Literalist Creationism.

 

[Bradskii]

Evolutionists feel like storytellers, a lot of 'could of'' 'maybe it happened this way', 'probably got that' etc.

Disculpe, pero es 'podría haber'. No es 'podría de'.

 

[RileyG]

if you read the bible, you know the Holy spirit was given to the disciples, the same can happen to anyone. As real as anything else.
You don't even need to be someone special or something.

That's faith based though. That's the difference. And I'm saying that as a Christian. "Feelings" are NOT faith.

 

[RileyG]

Evolutionists feel like storytellers, a lot of 'could of'' 'maybe it happened this way', 'probably got that' etc.

The fossil record? People can believe in BOTH evolution and God.

 

[Zceptre]

It's terrible that people have to see things in such a binary way such as this.

One does not preclude the other. Evolution only specifically precludes Literalist Creationism. That's it. And Christianity does perfectly fine without relying solely on Literalist Creationism.

Disagree.

Two opinions. No death in the garden, tons of death before the garden. Let's hear the explanation, just for kicks...

I will not be putting gloves on and am not set on proving anything. Just for nostalgia purposes figured I'd ask. lol